You are on page 1of 2

Public Officials who cannot engage in the private practice of Law in the Philippines:

1. Judges and other officials as employees of the Supreme Court (Rule 148, Sec. 35,
RRC). 2. Officials and employees of the OSG (Ibid.) 3. Government prosecutors
(People v. Villanueva, 14 SCRA 109). President, Vice-President, members of the
cabinet, their deputies and assistants (Art. VIII Sec. 15, 1987 Constitution). 4.
Members of the Constitutional Commission (Art IX-A, Sec. 2, 1987 Constitution) 5.
Ombudsman and his deputies (Art. IX, Sec. 8 (2nd par), 1987 Constitution) 6. All
governors, city and municipal mayors (R.A. No. 7160, Sec. 90). 7. Those prohibited by
special law .No Senator as member of the House of Representative may personally
appear as counsel before any court of justice as before the Electoral Tribunals, as
quasi-judicial and other administration bodies (Art. VI, Sec. 14, 1987 Constitution). 9.
Under the Local Government Code (RA 7160, Sec. 91)Sanggunian members may
practice their professions provided that if they are members of the Bar, they shall
not: -appear as counsel before any court in any civil case wherein a local government
unit or any office, agency, or instrumentality of the government is the adverse party; -
appear as counsel in any criminal case wherein an officer or employee of the national
or local government is accused of an offense committed in relation to his office; -
collect any fee for their appearance in administrative proceedings involving the local
government unit of which he is an official; use property and personnel of the
government except when the Sanggunian member concerned is defending the
interest of the government. 10. Under RA 910, Sec. 1, as amended, a retired justice or
judge receiving pension from the government, cannot act as counsel in any civil case
in which the Government, or any of its subdivision or agencies is the adverse party
or in a criminal case wherein an officer or employee of the Government is accused of
an offense in relation to his office
2. Non-lawyers who may be authorized to appear in court: 1. Cases before the MTC:
Party to the litigation, in person OR through an agent or friend or appointed by him
for that purpose (Sec. 34, Rule 138, RRC) Before any other court: Party to the
litigation, in person (Ibid.) 2. Criminal case before the MTC in a locality where a duly
licensed member of the Bar is not available: the judge may appoint a non-lawyer who
is: resident of the province of good repute for probity and ability to aid the accused in
his defense (Rule 116, Sec. 7, RRC). 3. Legal Aid Program – A senior law student, who
is enrolled in a recognized law school’s clinical education program approved by the
supreme Court may appear before any court without compensation, to represent
indigent clients, accepted by the Legal Clinic of the law school. The student shall be
under the direct supervision and control of an IBP member duly accredited by the law
school. 4. Under the Labor code, non-lawyers may appear before the NLRC or any
Labor Arbiter, if they represent themselves, or if they represent their organization or
members thereof (Art 222, PO 442, as amended). 5. Under the Cadastral Act, a non-
lawyer can represent a claimant before the Cadastral Court (Act no. 2259, Sec. 9)
3. Non-lawyers who may be authorized to appear in court: 1. Cases before the MTC:
Party to the litigation, in person OR through an agent or friend or appointed by him
for that purpose (Sec. 34, Rule 138, RRC) 2. Before any other court: Party to the
litigation, in person (Ibid.) 3. Criminal case before the MTC in a locality where a duly
licensed member of the Bar is not available: the judge may appoint a non-lawyer who
is a resident of the province of good repute for probity and ability to aid the accused
in his defense (Rule 116, Sec. 7, RRC). 4. Legal Aid Program – A senior law student,
who is enrolled in a recognized law school’s clinical education program approved by
the supreme Court may appear before any court without compensation, to represent
indigent clients, accepted by the Legal Clinic of the law school. The student shall be
under the direct supervision and control of an IBP member duly accredited by the law
school. 5. Under the Labor code, non-lawyers may appear before the NLRC or any
Labor Arbiter, if they represent themselves, or if they represent their organization or
members thereof (Art 222, PO 442, as amended). 6. Under the Cadastral Act, a non-
lawyer can represent a claimant before the Cadastral Court (Act no. 2259, Sec. 9)
4. FINAL ANSWER: Whether or not Kaffee was being negligent in the legal matter
entrusted to him? Yes, he was evidently negligent in performing his function as
counsel to the accused. Right after the scene where Dawson and Downey are being
escorted in handcuffs, it cuts to a scene where Kaffee is seen playing baseball.
Galloway approaches him and asks why his clients, Dawson and Downey, have been
jailed since the morning and that he, as their lawyer, is out playing baseball. His
evident nonchalance to the question of Galloway shows that he is barely interested, if
at all, with the welfare of his clients as is also seen in the other parts of the film. Rule
18.03 of Canon 18 of the Code of Professional Conduct states that: "A lawyer shall
not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him, and his negligence in connection
therewith shall render him liable." As such, he should have endeavored to employ
reasonable means to ensure the accomplishment of the lawful objectives entrusted
to him.
5. Ethical Issue: Whether or not Lt. Daniel Kaffee violated Canon 11,Rule 11.03 of the
Code of Professional Responsibility which states "A lawyer shall abstain from
scandalous, offensive or menacing language or behavior before the Courts." This
happened at the part of the movie where it has been concluded that Col. Jessep is to
be arrested due to his admission to have ordered the "Code Red", when Lt. Kaffee
uttered and called the former a "son of a b*tch". This blurted out of Kaffee's unbridled
contempt against Jessep after the very heated traduce to the latter. I submit that this
is indeed and infringement against one of the Rules in Canon 11 as mentioned in the
preceding paragraph. Kaffee could have restrained himself from acting
unprofessionally despite Jessep's prior unprofessional approach towards him,
especially that he is still within the period of trial and in the court room..

You might also like